Appeal against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award regarding conductor death in bus accident. Court fixed 10% deceased negligence and reduced compensation to 90%.
Award modified to 90% compensation; appellant to deposit remaining amount within eight weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE TH/E MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.11.2017
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
C.M.A.(MD)No.1354 of 2015 and M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2015
Tamil Nadu Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, Pallavan House, Chennai.
... Appellant/2nd Respondent Vs.
1.Veeralakshmi 2.Sorna Raja 3.Suganya ...Respondents 1 to 3/Petitioners 4.Sadasivam ... 4th Respondent/1st Respondent
Prayer : Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.43 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Devakottai.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Prabhakaran For Respondents : Mr.S.Vijayakumar for R1 to R3
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2.The appellant Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the impugned award on the ground of liability. One Lakshmanan was employed as a conductor in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Devakottai. He was travelling in the bus belonging to the appellant Transport Corporation on 23.08.2006. He fell down, when the bus in which he was travelling is said to taken a sudden right turn. He was admitted in the hospital and he died the next day. His wife and children filed M.C.O.P.No.43 of 2010, dated 28.02.2015, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Devakottai.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The appellant Transport Corporation filed their counter contending that the deceased invited the accident himself by
2
travelling in the foot board. He was also carrying luggage. He lost his balance and fell down on the road and sustained fatal injuries. The deceased alone was responsible for the accident. In support of this plea, the appellant examined Arul, conductor of the concerned bus. But the Tribunal chose to fasten the entire liability on the appellant Corporation and awarded a sum of Rs.15,93,868/- with interest.
4.Assailing the said award, the learned counsel for the appellant Corporation took me through the deposition of DW1. He also drew my attention to the contents of FIR EX.P1. The said FIR was marked by the claimants. It is mentioned in the said FIR that the deceased was travelling in the foot board and invited the accident himself. Therefore, fixing of the entire negligence on the bus driver by the Tribunal cannot be correct. At the same time, the fact remains that the conductor Arul was duty bound to ensure that none travelled on the foot board. This duty was not discharged by him. He had allowed the deceased to travel on the foot board. Therefore, negligence will have to be necessarily fixed on the conductor.
5.It is also the case of the learned counsel appearing for the claimants that the bus was negotiating to the signal and in order to go quickly fast the signal, the bus had swayed in a very rash and negligent manner. In the process, the victim had lost his balance. This appears to be fairly plausible. He also contended that the entire responsibilty for the accident is on the part of the driver of the appellant Corporation only. He would further point out that the conductor was standing in the middle of the bus. In these circumstances, negligence must be apportioned primarily on the bus driver and the conductor. As already pointed out, the deceased cannot escape his part of the blame. I therefore fix 10% of the negligence on the deceased. He had also contributed to the occurrence of the accident. The Tribunal had correctly quantified the compensation payable to the claimants. This Court therefore has to reduce the same, as regards the entitlement of the claimants in view of the fixing of 10% negligence on the deceased also.
7.The appellant is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount of Rs.13,44,482/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum with costs, from the date of petition till the date of realization, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, less the amount already deposited, if any. On such https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same, as apportioned by the Tribunal, less the amount already withdrawn by
3
them, if any, by filing proper application before the Tribunal.
8.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Assistant Registrar(W)
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Devakottai.
+1cc to Mr.P.PRABHAKARAN Advocate in SR. No. 87402 +1cc to Mr.S.VIJAYAKUMAR Advocate in SR. No. 87549
TSG
JS/SV.MMS/SAR.4/29.12.2017/3P-4C
C.M.A.(MD)No.1354 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2015 15.11.2017
Tamil Nadu Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited
Veeralakshmi
Sorna Raja
Suganya
Sadasivam
G.R.Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
